Public Sector Governance and Accountability Series: Budgeting and ...

428 Salvatore Schiavo-Campo
BOX 12.8 Some Lessons from the Experience of Introducing
Monitoring and Evaluation in Africa
Experience with M&E programs in Africa has yielded several important lessons:
Simply placing M&E on the government agenda is itself a significant
accomplishment (as in Sri Lanka and Malawi).
Also a significant accomplishment is helping to build a common monitoring
and evaluation language and conceptual understanding (as in Egypt).
Cross-fertilization of ideas and country comparisons can be helpful, as in
the effective use of the Chilean experience for other countries.
An excessive focus on “macro” public sector management issues detracts
from robust M&E “at the coal face.” Better links of evaluation activities
with specific line-ministry staff and service providers are important.
Similarly, focusing M&E on the provision of services of specific sectors can
be a highly promising entry point, which is often neglected.
The mere availability of dedicated funding is insufficient to advance the
M&E agenda if it is not targeted clearly on capacity building.
Excessive monitoring, through a large number of indicators, produces little
effective monitoring (as in Uganda).
Inattention to bureaucratic realities produces delays or weak ownership.
Overreliance on one-off workshops or similar events is not advisable.
Although these events can be important to put M&E on the map, sustained
capacity-building efforts are required to improve the performance of the
public sector on a lasting basis.
Source: Adapted from OED 2004 (particularly the Uganda and Egypt case studies prepared by
the author).
such practices. This practice makes de facto bribery a respectable alternative
for civil servants not fortunate enough to be engaged in those projects and
eventually destroys the integrity of the government budget as a whole.
On the positive side, donors can support a variety of activities that will
improve PEM. To do so, the donor agency itself must have adequate
competence in PEM (or make sure to obtain competent advice) and be
knowledgeable about good and bad experiences in other countries. Institutions
do not provide advice, individuals do—And if the understanding of
the individual donor staff members of complex PEM issues is superficial or,
worse, imprisoned by fashionable buzzwords, their advice is far more likely
to cause damage than to be useful. In the same vein, if consultants are used,
(a) preclude from the start their participation in downstream implementation
activities, (b) build in strong and independent quality review provisions,